–What Japan needs now. Hint: It’s not what Michael Shuman suggests.

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. If you understand the following, simple statement, you are ahead of most economists, politicians and media writers in America: Our government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to create the dollars to pay its bills.
======================================================================================================================================================================================
Michael Schuman, yet another of those economic commentators who does not understand Monetary Sovereignty, the basis of modern economics, today wrote a column titled, “Could Japan’s earthquake cause a debt crisis.” In this column he said,

Japan already has the largest debt burden of any industrialized country, at about 200% of GDP, and even though Japan is not yet showing signs of following Ireland, Greece and the rest of the euro zone periphery into a full-blown debt crisis . . .

I wonder how much more evidence will be required, before Michael finally understands that Japan, like the U.S., is Monetarily Sovereign, while Ireland et al are monetarily non-sovereign. Monetarily Sovereign nations, having the unlimited ability to create their sovereign currency, never can have a “debt crisis” (assuming “debt crisis” means being unable to pay bills).

What will it take, Michael? A debt/GDP of 300%? 500%? 1,000,000%? At what point will you and the rest of the debt hawks finally come to the realization that debt/GDP is meaningless for a Monetarily Sovereign nation?

By the way, all the collections being taken up world wide to help Japan, while kind-hearted and praiseworthy, are useless. Japan is not short of money. It can create unlimited money. What Japan needs are equipment and people, to clean up the mess and to rebuild. Engineers, doctors, architects, planners + every kind of heavy machinery you can imagine. Japan can buy all the machinery it needs, but buying the people is much more difficult, so anyone truly wishing to help the Japanese people will try to learn what sort of human help is needed, and volunteer.

But save your money. Japan does not need it.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Are there good deficits and bad deficits?

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
====================================================================================================================================================================================

While Congress struggles with plans to cut federal deficits (i.e. cut federal money creation), and simultaneously tries to encourage banks to lend (i.e increase private money creation), it might be instructive to see why this is exactly the wrong approach. Please go to a post I wrote last June (since updated), titled, Is federal money better than other money?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

–Did TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) work?

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

If you’ve joined the millions who believe TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) didn’t work, you’ll enjoy these excerpts from a NY Times article, titled, “Bailout Loss Estimated at $29 Billion,” by Louise Story, October 5, 2010. The article quotes from a Treasury Department report:

“The Treasury Department expects to lose $29 billion on the federal bailouts . . . the cost is far below the $350 billion the Congressional Budget Office once estimated. ‘Because of the success of the program, TARP will likely cost a fraction of this amount,’ the report said.”

This means the federal government actually pumped only $29 billion TARP money into the economy. This “too little-too late” approach explains much of the reason why the recovery has been so slow.

“Recently, the Congressional Budget Office put the cost at $66 billion. […] The Treasury arrived at its figure by adding in profits that it expects to receive on shares of A.I.G. stock.- – – a $22 billion profit. Without those shares, the Treasury would have reported a $51 billion loss, rather than a $29 billion loss, the report said. “In total, the Treasury has received back about $204 billion of the bailout funds, or just over half of the money it doled out.”

Federal profits are identical with federal taxes. They represent money taken from the economy. Taxing the economy $204 billion is a poor way to stimulate the economy, and again shows why the recovery has been slow.

“Nearly 80 percent of the money given to banks has been paid back. The Treasury also received $26.8 billion from banks through interest payments . . . The report did not break down the sources of the automobile losses. The government gave the most money to General Motors and is seeking to recoup some through an initial public offering.”

This should read, “Nearly 80 percent of the money given to the banks has been taxed back.”

“The Treasury plans to give A.I.G. $22 billion more. That money will help A.I.G. pay down its debt to the Federal Reserve of New York.”

The federal government will give AIG $22 billion, then AIG immediately will give it back. Only in Washington could this be considered an economic stimulus. So did TARP work? What TARP?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com


No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Why the U.S. owns China

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

Despite all appearances, we own China. China has sold its soul to the U.S. By focusing on export, and accumulating dollars and T-securities, China has strengthened the dollar. Now, what can China do with its enormous cache of T-securities? If it stops “lending” to us, i.e. stops using its dollars to buy more T-securities, it simply will accumulate more dollars.

So, what else can China do with its dollars? Three bad choices: It can trade more dollars for other currencies. This would flood the market with dollars, weakening the dollar, and making export to the U.S. more difficult (while making our export easier). Or, it can increase its worldwide purchase of assets – real estate, hard and soft goods, etc. – which in addition to being politically risky, also would flood the world with dollars. Or it simply can keep more dollars in it’s checking account at the Federal Reserve Bank.

So aside from purchasing T-securities, which effectively locks up (actually destroys) dollars, China is stuck. If they wish to keep exporting to us, they are forced to keep accepting dollars, which in turn, forces them to purchase T-securities. All those pundits who worry about “What will happen if China stops lending us money?” do not understand that China cannot stop buying T-securities.

China does not lend us yuan; it cannot use yuan to buy T-securities. It lends us only dollars, the dollars we previously created. The U.S. does not need China to lend us dollars; we are a monetarily sovereign nation with the unlimited ability to create dollars. We don’t need China’s.

Previously, we discussed the China trade deficit myth, when we said:

”A trade deficit is an example of one country devoting great effort to creating scarce materials for another country in exchange for something that requires no effort by the other country. In that sense, China is our servant. They work, sweat and strain and use their valuable resources to create and ship to us the things we want, while we, hardly lifting a finger, ship dollars to them. Who has the better deal?”

“To satisfy our desires, China could ship us every yard of cloth and every ounce of steel in their country; they could burn all their coal and oil; they could employ every man, woman and child in dismal sweatshops; they could empty their nation of all physical resources, and still we would have plenty of dollars to send to them, simply by touching a computer key.”

So, we own China. By emphasizing export rather than internal money creation (aka deficit spending), China has dug a deep pit for itself. Yes, China has had strong economic growth, but at what price? It has received in return for its exports, an asset it cannot use – U.S. dollars. These dollars are unusable, not because they are worthless. On the contrary, dollars are quite valuable. The problem is that in using the dollars, China would depreciate their value, which would destroy China’s export-based economy.

Of course, China knows this. Sadly, U.S. pundits, who fret about our so-called “debt” to China, don’t understand it. And the debt-hawks, who believe exporting is more prudent than deficit spending, really don’t understand that for a monetarily sovereign nation, deficit spending is the most prudent, controllable way to grow an economy.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity